If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
With Apple's latest MacBook and MacBook Pro, a new port is found. It is a 'mini-Display Port'. Display Port is already smaller than the plastic connector, so why do we need a smaller port? Display Port is a recognised standard whereas only Apple uses this new 'mini-Display Port'.
The difference between Mini-Display Port and the standard Display Port?
It only supports up to 2560x1600 whereas the DisplayPort supports up to 4096x2160!
It doesn't support HDMI!
It doesn't support audio!
It doesn't support an auxiliary channel (USB or touch screen, for example, would have another cable).
They're the only ones manufacturing it, but there are no adapters available (to HDMI, S-Video, DisplayPort, etc).
No improvement in 3mm difference.
So why does Apple use this port and only this port in their new MacBook's and MacBook Pro's forcing people to use their mDP? The adapters. To buy an adapter for mDP off the only company who sells them, Apple, will cost $30 for a miniDisplayPort to DVI and $99 for the dual link adapter.
Quote from Apple's website:
Originally posted by Apple
Connect via Mini DisplayPort.
The LED Cinema Display attaches to your new MacBook, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air using the new industry-standard Mini DisplayPort connector. Other display connectors have you lining up pins or fumbling with screws. But the Mini DisplayPort connector is easy in, easy out.
Oh really? Industry-standard? Only Apple uses them and only Apple's latest MacBooks have them. The port was never sent to SETA and there is no alliance with any other company. There is no definition that could be used to call this a 'industry-standard.'
Other display connections... lining up pins and fumbling with screws? What about the standard DisplayPort? Isn't it exactly the same but with more features and an industry recognised standard?
This is an outright lie on their company website. It can't even be disputed.
Quote from a former Apple user:
Originally posted by LazLong
I realize that I'm showing myself to be a geezer by remembering this, but Apple did this crap a long time ago and I REALLY hated it then. Even more reason to stay away from their hardware now.
When Apple first came out with color Mac's in 1987 they used a D-sub/DA-15 connector for their video, instead of the then standard VGA connector. Apple's monitors were horribly expensive at the time, and a market of adapters quickly sprung up. I was doing desktop support at the time, and was plagued by this until finally moving into the back-office arena. It was a real huge pain in the ass. Not only that, but they changed the standard when the Quadra 700 came out, doing a sync-on-green or some such that caused a whole new type of adapter to come out.
So, 21 years later, they are still up to the same old crap. Customers suffer, IT curses them for being non-standard, and Apple wonders why they only have 8.9% of the market....They should have just stuck with DisplayPort. While annoying in its infancy, it is at least a recognized industry standard that is more likely to be adopted and cause less headache later on.
P.S.: Before one of you Apple Fanboys flames me for being a soulless spawn of Gates, realize that I first started using a Mac in February of 1984, have personally owned five. I just got sick and tired of the proprietary crap, especially after the Mac clone debacle, and switched to Windows/Intel-standard hardware where I have more of a choice and control over the system I use.
Has it ever occurred to you that Apple doesn't want a bigger market share? Is like if you suddenly saw Ferrari selling family economy cars... Is NEVER going to happen. That is actually part of what makes Apple, Apple. They portray themselves as the Rolls Royce of the personal computing industry. They're luxury items even at their most basic configurations. Kind of Audi if you will (the A3 is nothing but a Volkswagen Golf in steroids), their basic models are fairly standard, but unique in some ways... That's what Apple is, has always been, and why shot down the clones. They're aspiration items, everybody likes their stuff and everybody feels cool just to use the stuff... As stupid as that is, it has worked out pretty well for them, as for other "brands" in many other areas (clothing, shoes, cars, why personal computers would have to be different?).
That's fine but the problem is they aren't luxury items. There's nothing special about their products except the luxury pricetag. Generally their products lack features whilst a real luxury item excels in features.
What you are talking about is actually companies like AlienWare. AlienWare sold unique designs, exceptional features and powerful hardware with bleeding-edge technologies. Check out a real luxury computer.
Apple, on the other hand, uses average consumer hardware and markets their products towards every day consumers. They compete against Dell. They market their product as being elite (by being expensive) but they still want poor people to buy it (and they do).
You're kidding yourself if you think they aren't going for marketshare.
Edit: You're also going off-topic and side-tracking the point of this topic. Apple behaving worse than Microsoft. Is that agreement then?
Regardless of whether they are after marketshare or not, that does not give an excuse to create a port that is worse than an existing standard port and force their users to use it with the option of paying money so they can actually use it.
Unless, by your meaning of they aren't after marketshare, you mean: they are trying to get people not to buy their products at all.
Yes, then again, there's nothing luxury in a Versace shirt (cutton fabric? Loop of the loom t-shirts also have that!!)... You know what I mean, is marketing something as special items based solely on manufacturing and, well marketing. Don't tell me that Apple shoots for the Average Joe Six Pack type of client... They don't... But indeed that is another whole matter.
Bottom line is that YES Apple is worse than Microsoft simply because they target a very specific profile of user, or should I say profiles of users? The result is the same, they exercise strong-arm tactics on resellers and even clients due to these profiles. And in doing this, yes, they're much worse than Microsoft, tighter, less flexible, etc, etc.
Like I've said before, I like their products purely by aesthetics, I despise Apple as a company.
Oh, and by the way, Alienware are only awfully powerful computers, with some interesting designs, but THIS is truly a Luxury computer, have you seen an Alienware like this? I certainly have not. I almost forgot, you can order yours here
See any non Apple product with as much "bling"?... Some interesting designs, certainly, but nothing as "fancy".
Yes, then again, there's nothing luxury in a Versace shirt (cutton fabric? Loop of the loom t-shirts also have that!!
I guess they have luxury marketing like Versace. Apple's designs are nothing special though. Gold-plating something doesn't make a good design, heck - it's just plating. Must I remind you that Apple did not gold-plate that machine, it's a different company. So yes, non-Apple. Most of Apple's products are no more appealing than my blank white wall. If I stuck an Apple logo on my wall and took a picture, you could mistake it for the back of a MacBook or maybe an iPod zoomed in.
Edit: Oh yeah and they actually do market and sell to Joe-Six Pack. I have seen more Joe-Six Packs with iPhones than anyone else. What about you? I'm pretty sure that's their market. The iPhone is the #1 selling phone in the US market afterall.